Parental rights

[thalassa]

Re: Parental rights

Let's just expand that a little. Little Johnny is acting up in class. The school consults with a physician, who medicates the kid without the parents' consent "for his health and welfare".

Yeah, in the context of a conversation over killing your kid by refusing medical treatment in favor of prayer, this is one big fat logical fallacy.

So, no. Lets not expand that a little.

[DanieMarie]

Re: Parental rights

I feel like getting around religious rights isn't that hard here. In a secular society, freedom of religion stops when those religious beliefs restrict the rights and freedoms of other people (especially the right to LIVE). If you believe in honor killings, you still don't get to kill your daughter for disobeying you. If you believe that being gay is a horrible sin, you still don't get to beat up gay people. And if you believe in praying over medical care, you can make those decisions for yourself, but NOT for other people (even if those people are minor and your own children).

- - - Updated - - -

There isn't a problem here - the right to life trumps the right to liberty. Without life, there can be no liberty, civil or otherwise - thus, life is the higher right.

Exactly. this is what I meant, in a short version.

[Maria de Luna]

Re: Parental rights

Let's just expand that a little. Little Johnny is acting up in class. The school consults with a physician, who medicates the kid without the parents' consent "for his health and welfare".

Obviously, the scale of the two situations are very different, but the principle remains the same. The only question is, what is the basic unit for humans? The family or society? A hundred years ago, there would be no question...Family would be the only possible answer. Now, though, it's a lot more fuzzy, as evidenced by what these parents did to their child, and the reaction of both the state (the courts) and society (the court of public opinion).

It is more than the scale of the situation here... it's apples and oranges here. a) medicating someone elses child who presents no life threatening issues is completely illegal and will get any number of people losing their jobs b) was Johnny gonna die? no? right different situation. Was johnny going to have a severe mental or physical disability without the parents acting? No? No, I did not think so. It is not even remotely the same situation...
Letting your child die is neglectful, knowing it is going to happen if you keep doing what you are doing is manslaughter. We can talk about religious beliefs all day, but what is illegal remains illegal, religious beliefs or not.

[Ophidia]

Re: Parental rights

Personally, I think people should be able to choose whatever type of medical care they prefer most for themselves and their children. If that means no medical care, or relying on some form of quackery, so be it. I think it's stupid to let your kid die of a treatable illness, but I don't feel that it should be considered murder.

[Aeran]

Re: Parental rights

Absolutely not. Even putting aside the question of whether parents should have the right to harm their children for the sake of ideology, there's absolutely no reason they can't pray AND use real medicine.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Parental rights

Let's just expand that a little. Little Johnny is acting up in class. The school consults with a physician, who medicates the kid without the parents' consent "for his health and welfare".

This does not happen in the US. It is way, way illegal...

- - - Updated - - -

There is no correct answer to this question.

On one hand, you have the religious rights of the family.

On the other hand, you have minors put in clear and present danger.

So you run into one of those areas where the dividing line between civil liberty and social responsibility don't blur, they overlap.

There isn't a problem here - the right to life trumps the right to liberty. Without life, there can be no liberty, civil or otherwise - thus, life is the higher right.

[Luce]

Re: Parental rights

This is a (unfortunately) fairly common occurrence - parents watch as their child dies, trusting to prayer rather than a medical doctor.

The parents in this case were found guilty of second degree murder:

Parents who prayed for sick daughter

Here's a summary of the legal issues involved:



So - the debate question is this-

In you opinion, should parents have a legal right, and immunity from prosecution, for refusing life-saving medical treatments for their children?

There is no correct answer to this question.

On one hand, you have the religious rights of the family.

On the other hand, you have minors put in clear and present danger.

So you run into one of those areas where the dividing line between civil liberty and social responsibility don't blur, they overlap.

- - - Updated - - -

Hell-the-fuck-no....a parents religious rights do not extend to their child's health and welfare.

Or, this:

Let's just expand that a little. Little Johnny is acting up in class. The school consults with a physician, who medicates the kid without the parents' consent "for his health and welfare".

Obviously, the scale of the two situations are very different, but the principle remains the same. The only question is, what is the basic unit for humans? The family or society? A hundred years ago, there would be no question...Family would be the only possible answer. Now, though, it's a lot more fuzzy, as evidenced by what these parents did to their child, and the reaction of both the state (the courts) and society (the court of public opinion).

[Maria de Luna]

Re: Parental rights

Hell-the-fuck-no....a parents religious rights do not extend to their child's health and welfare.

My husband said this. I said lets punch people who think that its OK to let their kid die if it is the will of god.... but I suppose forcing them through the justice system is fair enough. I guess that puts the burden of where the line is on prosecutors. I feel like if parents believed that their child was going to die, but let it happen, that's where the problem lies. If they are just legitimately ignorant of how ill their little one was, I don't think it absolves them, but it makes for a harder case in the criminal justice system.

[thalassa]

Re: Parental rights

Hell-the-fuck-no....a parents religious rights do not extend to their child's health and welfare.

Or, this:

Religious freedom is very important, and if a person doesn't want chemotherapy to treat their cancer, no one should force them.

However, it's very different to force that on your children. You can raise them with belief in faith healing if you want. But your child is not mature enough to make his or her own medical decisions, and until they are, if you can't manage to make the correct choices that will KEEP YOUR CHILDREN ALIVE, then the law should make those choices for you.

[ChainLightning]

Re: Parental rights

Parents make a lot of important decisions regarding their children, but (IMHO) whether they live or died should not be one of them...

The religious angle is a red herring, and irrelevant - again, IMHO.

I have a problem, here, as to where the line is drawn. Religious tradition, mandating faith in *God* over human precepts, abilities and meddling, would also be used to explain why the praying for health didn't work. (As in, "God's will be done," or something similar.) Secular tradition, relying on research/studies, trial and error, experience, is not always exact. (As in, "we did everything we could... I'm sorry Mrs. J, your child didn't make it.") Both traditions have a long history; both, contemporaneously, have legal ramifications; Both are supported by a modicum of legal protection. Yet, in so many instances, they are found to be mutually exclusive. With Justice trying to walk a balance beam, between them, in a high wind.

If the religious parents (ipso facto, God) can be held liable, so then would the medical practitioner that wasn't successful and, indeed, lost the life of a minor, in their care.

To that end, I don't see where religion, then, would be a red herring but, more, a simple contradiction to the "guesswork in a white coat" that medicine amounts to. That being the case, religious freedom IS pertinent, at the very least, up to a point. Medicine is pertinent but, also, only at a certain point.

That produces a "gray area" that I do not like. Where, in effect, what you believe is completely irrelevant and meaningless, in favor of some other person's beliefs. THAT is a slippery slope of religious oppression, at some point, isn't it?

[MaskedOne]

Re: Parental rights

Parents are provided substantial control over a minor's affairs. They are required to use this control for the minor's benefit in certain areas. I have no objection to the legal system making explicit requirements in how parents handle medical care for their children. I am not necessarily enthused about applying a murder 2 charge in the absence of specific legal requirements regarding medical care but I don't know enough about the law in that jurisdiction to make a judgement there.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Parental rights

Parents make a lot of important decisions regarding their children, but (IMHO) whether they live or died should not be one of them...

The religious angle is a red herring, and irrelevant - again, IMHO.

[volcaniclastic]

Re: Parental rights

I'm on the fence about it. I think the parents should have freedom to deal with their minor as they wish, but I can think of several instances where that phrase would make me a hypocrite.

[InspiringRaine]

Re: Parental rights

Religious freedom is very important, and if a person doesn't want chemotherapy to treat their cancer, no one should force them.

However, it's very different to force that on your children. You can raise them with belief in faith healing if you want. But your child is not mature enough to make his or her own medical decisions, and until they are, if you can't manage to make the correct choices that will KEEP YOUR CHILDREN ALIVE, then the law should make those choices for you.

^ Yes. Completely agree with her. Just saying.

[Raphaeline]

Re: Parental rights

Religious freedom is very important, and if a person doesn't want chemotherapy to treat their cancer, no one should force them.

However, it's very different to force that on your children. You can raise them with belief in faith healing if you want. But your child is not mature enough to make his or her own medical decisions, and until they are, if you can't manage to make the correct choices that will KEEP YOUR CHILDREN ALIVE, then the law should make those choices for you.