< 1 2 >
Posted: 7 months ago by tundramonkey:
Reading this article this morning about a baby girl who died because her parents didn't seek medical attention reminded me of other similar incidents. I was particularly reminded of the highly publicized sextuplets, where the province of British Columbia seized three of the four surviving babies in order to ensure they recieved life-saving blood transfusion that their religious parents had been refusing.
This makes me wonder: should the government intervene in circumstances such as this, where a child's life is dependant on medical aid the parents refuse for religious reasons, or should the parents alone be allowed to decide their child's fate?
I'm interested on hearing your views on this.
Score: [-] 168 [+].
Posted: 7 months ago by tundramonkey:
In my opinion, the government should definitely intervene.
I do not see children as property of the parents, and I think our government should be concerned about the welfare of all of its citizens, children included. Here in North America, as well as in much of Europe and parts of Asia, excellent health care is available and accessable to almost everyone, and I don't think that religion should interfere with any person's access to this, regardless of that person's age.
One thing that puzzles me is the fact that (here, at least) it's usually groups that support abortion bans that disagree with government intervention in the situations I linked to above.
I also think that parents who refuse their children vital medical services should be charged with child abuse. Failing to seek medical attention or to help an ill or dying child when good help/medical professionals are nearby should be considered neglect, in my opinion. Sure, the parents may mean well, but I think in cases like this the government needs to protect the children.
Score: [-] 147 [+].
Posted: 7 months ago by punthe:
I very much agree with the above statement.
I am anything but religious and the situations you describe above are some of the many reasons why.
Score: [-] 39 [+].
Posted: 7 months ago by icepigs:
« tundramonkey : In my opinion, the government should definitely intervene. The question is - where do you draw the line?
If the child needs a transfusion? A new kidney? Has cavities? Needs Lasik? Wants Botox?
I agree that these parents are idiots and should be charged with child abuse...however, I'm never for giving the government more authority over me and my decisions.
Score: [-] 146 [+].
Posted: 7 months ago by 2manyusernames:
The parents should be charged much more than chold abuse. If the child dies, they should be charged with negligent homicide as well as child abuse.
If the child doesn't die, than attempted homicide and whatever other charges can be tacked on.
It is perfectly fine for people to believe whatever religion they want. It isn't necessarily perfectly fine for them to practice whatever religion they want to.
I believe the parents should be charged with a crime even when it is some 14-year old kid that refuses the medical treatment. He has been brainwashed by the adults.
Score: [-] 148 [+].
Posted: 7 months ago by 2manyusernames:
« icepigs : The question is - where do you draw the line?
If the child needs a transfusion? A new kidney? Has cavities? Needs Lasik? Wants Botox?
I agree that these parents are idiots and should be charged with child abuse...however, I'm never for giving the government more authority over me and my decisions. That is a pretty obvious answer. Obviously not getting a transfusion or a new kidney will kill the child. Having cavities, poor vision, or wrinkled skin is not a guaranteed death sentence.
Score: [-] 99 [+].
Posted: 7 months ago by tundramonkey:
« icepigs:The question is - where do you draw the line?
If the child needs a transfusion? A new kidney? Has cavities? Needs Lasik? Wants Botox?
I agree that these parents are idiots and should be charged with child abuse...however, I'm never for giving the government more authority over me and my decisions. I think the line should be life and death. I child won't die from not getting his cavities filled, but he probably will if he doesn't get that transfusion.
We have the means of keeping people alive so much more now than ever, and I don't think a religion should deny a person of his/her right to live.
edit: Doh! 2man, you and I were answering at the same time. Great minds think alike, I guess.
Score: [-] 83 [+].
Posted: 7 months ago by icepigs:
« 2manyusernames : That is a pretty obvious answer. Obviously not getting a transfusion or a new kidney will kill the child. Having cavities, poor vision, or wrinkled skin is not a guaranteed death sentence. I used those as extreme examples...but where do you draw the line? Who's to determine when the government should override the parents wishes?
Theoretically, a child can live without a kidney if they are on dialysis. So, should the government force dialysis on the child until the child is 18 and can decide (as a legal adult) if they want the transplant or not?
Score: [-] 57 [+].
Posted: 7 months ago by icepigs:
« tundramonkey : I think the line should be life and death. I child won't die from not getting his cavities filled, but he probably will if he doesn't get that transfusion.
We have the means of keeping people alive so much more now than ever, and I don't think a religion should deny a person of his/her right to live. Who's to decide what's life and death? Yes, you can die from cavities. Read about a 12 year old boy who died from untreated cavities.
That's why I want to know WHO gets to decide when the government can step in......who decides what is life and death.
Score: [-] 48 [+].
Posted: 7 months ago by punthe:
Death from untreated cavities
Obviously a rare and extreme case. Though, point duely noted.
Score: [-] 46 [+].
Posted: 7 months ago by 2manyusernames:
Yes, you can die from cavities. That is such a rare case as to not be a serious issue.
The government should be able to force dialysis or a transplant on a child. A person should not be allowed to deny their child a functioning kidney or something that will perform the actions of a kidney just because their "god" tells them to do so, or for any reason for that matter.
If it is a crime to starve a child because god tells you that you can live on air than it is an equal crime to withhold blood, filtering out waste products, and other medically required services.
Common sense will draw the line. A medical board of 3 doctors can determine that the child will die without the services.
Personally I would even go further. If some a*****e con man convinces someone, even an adult that they can heal you by laying on hands or "holy" water, psychic healing, etc and their victim dies, that person should be charged with involuntary manslaughter at the very least.
Again if the conman convinces them that he can heal them with a touch he can possibly be charged with a crime if he charges the victim money. If it is a crime to take their money, they it should be a crime if they die or even suffer greater injuries due to the scam.
Score: [-] 74 [+].
Posted: 7 months ago by icepigs:
« 2manyusernames : Yes, you can die from cavities. That is such a rare case as to not be a serious issue. But that was a medically preventable death. Does this not fall into the exact situation you're talking about? Parents withholding needed medical attention due to religious reasons?
« 2manyusernames : Common sense will draw the line. If only common sense were common.
« 2manyusernames
A medical board of 3 doctors can determine that the child will die without the services. Aahh! The first answer to my question.
This deserves a follow up....who choses the 3 doctors? What credentials do they have? What type of doctor will they be? Will they have an MD or a DO? Or will a DC count? (They are all nationally recognized doctors).
What if I can find 3 doctors that disagree with your three doctors? Will it then be tied up in the courts as I fight to go with the recommendation of my doctors?
« 2manyusernames : Personally I would even go further. If some a*****e con man convinces someone, even an adult that they can heal you by laying on hands or "holy" water, psychic healing, etc and their victim dies, that person should be charged with involuntary manslaughter at the very least. But what about medical doctors that say they can heal you and fail? Isn't this a double standard?
And isn't this the government infringing on your religious freedoms?
Score: [-] 57 [+].
Posted: 7 months ago by restlesschicken:
i don't think i'd be speaking for everyone with this, or even for many people, but i'm sure i'd be speaking for a few people, when i say that some people's only choice is faith healing, but not because their faith says so.
the cost of health care in the U.S. is obscene. privatized hospitals and health care institutions, and the insurance companies are a scam. does anybody know the cost of a blood transfusion, or an organ transplant? i know from example (not my personal example, thankfully) that to just reattach a finger tip can cost nearly 60,000 dollars. $60k, for a freaking finger tip. needless to say, the guy in the accident went without reattaching the finger. i'd imagine other operations like a new kidney would go up to hundreds of thousands.
so what'll it be ... take your child in for an operation and face family debt for a couple generations, or take a snowball's chance in hell with faith healing?
(if somebody would like to challenge my cynical view, i'd welcome it. i'm reasonably healthy, but i really don't want to actually forgo a live-saving operation because my family can't ever get the money to do so.)
Score: [-] 43 [+].
Posted: 7 months ago by badbud:
« icepigs : But that was a medically preventable death. Does this not fall into the exact situation you're talking about? Parents withholding needed medical attention due to religious reasons?
The 12 yr old boy in Baltimore died from a cavity, that turned into an abscess, that created a sinus into his brain.
He died not because his parents withheld treatment for religious reasons, but because they could not afford dental treatment and were unaware of the seriousness of the boys condition.
In the simplest and most disgusting terms, he died because he was poor.
Score: [-] 78 [+].
Posted: 7 months ago by TraumaMamma:
« 2manyusernames : Yes, you can die from cavities. That is such a rare case as to not be a serious issue.
The government should be able to force dialysis or a transplant on a child. A person should not be allowed to deny their child a functioning kidney or something that will perform the actions of a kidney just because their "god" tells them to do so, or for any reason for that matter.
If it is a crime to starve a child because god tells you that you can live on air than it is an equal crime to withhold blood, filtering out waste products, and other medically required services.
Common sense will draw the line. A medical board of 3 doctors can determine that the child will die without the services.
Personally I would even go further. If some a*****e con man convinces someone, even an adult that they can heal you by laying on hands or "holy" water, psychic healing, etc and their victim dies, that person should be charged with involuntary manslaughter at the very least.
Again if the conman convinces them that he can heal them with a touch he can possibly be charged with a crime if he charges the victim money. If it is a crime to take their money, they it should be a crime if they die or even suffer greater injuries due to the scam. I agree with you 100%, but when the child voices they are too tired to go on, (cancer, kidney failure, etc) the child should be able to make that choice. And even at 2 yrs old, I have seen them be ready to MAKE that choice.
My coworkers grandson tolerated picc lines, chemo, bone marrow transfusions, and radiation at 18 months and wasn't hardly sick during ALL of those treatments.
One day, he pushed away the needle and cried and said, "No more". He fought and tolerated SO many invasive procedures, and one day, he just looked sicker than normal and gave up.
And he was peaceful about it. His mother respected it.
I think there is a fine line. Yes, to a point. Infections are easily fixed. Asthma can be treated. Every situation is individual. I hate for the govt to be involved in more than it is, but if the child cannot say what they want, someone needs to look out for them.
Reminds me of the joke...On helping ourselves a bit. God did give us TOOLS to fix things.
A guy called Jacob finds himself in dire trouble. His business has gone bust and he's in serious financial trouble. He's so desperate that he decides to ask God for help. He goes into the chapel and begins to pray...........
"God, please help me, I've lost my business and if I don't get some money, I'm going to lose my house as well, please let me win the lotto".
Lotto night comes and somebody else wins it. Jacob goes back to the synagogue. "God, please let me win the lotto, I've lost my business, my house and I'm going to lose my car as well". Lotto night comes and Jacob still has no luck!!
Back to the chapel. "My God, why have you forsaken me?? I've lost my business, my house, my car and my wife and children are starving. I don't often ask you for help and I have always been a good servant to you. Why won't you just let me win the lotto this one time so I can get my life back in order???".
Suddenly there is a blinding flash of light as the heavens open and Jacob is confronted by the voice of GOD himself: "JACOB, MEET ME HALF WAY ON THIS ONE, BUY A TICKET!!".
Score: [-] 29 [+].
Posted: 7 months ago by SpamTrap:
Yes. The government should intervene.
Score: [-] 0 [+].
Posted: 7 months ago by badbud:
And isn't this the government infringing on your religious freedoms?
As an adult, you have the right to surrender your human rights if you choose to do so, for whatever reasons you choose.
I don't believe you have the right to take away the rights of a child.
Score: [-] 63 [+].
Posted: 7 months ago by icepigs:
« badbud : The 12 yr old boy in Baltimore died from a cavity, that turned into an abscess, that created a sinus into his brain.
He died not because his parents withheld treatment for religious reasons, but because they could not afford dental treatment and were unaware of the seriousness of the boys condition.
In the simplest and most disgusting terms, he died because he was poor. I stand corrected...
however - this brings up a whole NEW question...
Who is going to pay for all of this?
My main goal of my argument in this thread is not because I think the parents should be able to withhold health care...
It was to get everyone to think the whole thing through.
Are YOU willing to give up your religious freedoms because a group of government appointed doctors say that you're wrong?
Are YOU willing to increase your taxes to cover the cost of these treatments and the legal battles the decisions will cause?
Are YOU willing to give more power and authority to the government (whom most of you seem to despise right now).
You can't just say "yes, someone should intervene" without thinking the ENTIRE process through and figuring out if you're willing to take the BAD along with the good.
I personally am all for taking power AWAY from the government and giving it back to the people.
Score: [-] 37 [+].
Posted: 7 months ago by cheeselog1234:
The government should intervene on an as needed basis.
There is no blanket policy here. Every case is examined individually. That is why there is a Dept. of Childrens Services at the local government level.
Government is leery about intervening in any situation involving religion.
Also, it is up to the medical professionals to report potential cases to the government.
Medical costs in the United States are so high because it is privatized. If the US had socialized medicine then our taxes would be much higher. Medical care costs a lot of money no matter what - it's just a matter of how it is financed - privately or publicly.
In reality, The US government subsidizes medical costs anyway...
Score: [-] 37 [+].
Posted: 7 months ago by 2manyusernames:
« TraumaMamma : I agree with you 100%, but when the child voices they are too tired to go on, (cancer, kidney failure, etc) the child should be able to make that choice. And even at 2 yrs old, I have seen them be ready to MAKE that choice. Yes, of course there is a huge difference in allowing someone to be relieved of suffering. There is no reason that they should be forced to be kept alive when there is no or little help of being cured.
I am strictly speaking about standard medical treatment that can cure a person. Refusing to allow a child blood transfusions should be considered the same as withholding food and water.
Score: [-] 37 [+].
Posted: 7 months ago by badbud:
Are YOU willing to give up your religious freedoms because a group of government appointed doctors say that you're wrong?
As a medical professional, a(recently)former practicing catholic, and a woman who has CHOSEN not to have children - There isn't a single person on this Earth that has the authority to make my medical decisions while I'm conscious. Church, state, or otherwise. But the original question is not about my religious freedom, it was about the rights of a CHILD. So yeah, I'm willing to allow the government to control the rights of a child to stay alive.
Are YOU willing to increase your taxes to cover the cost of these treatments and the legal battles the decisions will cause?
Yes sir, I am! Right now. Sign me up! And by the way, if 51% of my taxes didn't go to national defense I don't think I'd need to pay more taxes.
Are YOU willing to give more power and authority to the government (whom most of you seem to despise right now).
You need to be a little more specific...
Score: [-] 52 [+].
< 1 2 >