Is it OK to not give your child a modern medical treatment because of your beleifs
Look at this article
How hard does reality have to hit a religious person in the head for her/him to take notice
Side Score: 32
Side Score: 14
It's unfair to the child. It's as if he is going to die now and the only person who can save him is the doctor, but his parents won't allow it. So they'd rather have their children die than do one little medical procedure that may or may not go against some of their ridiculous beliefs? Sounds heartless and closed-minded to me.
"Please Jesus, let me on one of these juries with the parents who let their kid die because they are waiting for you to save them instead of taking the goddamn medicine the doctor gives them. If you do I'll push for crucifixion, that seems to be popular in your circles. Amen."
After the third trimester (except in cases of incest-rape, still-birth and freakish mortal disease detected in the cell cluster) The experts have determined the human to be an independant life-form and the law has rightfully afforded all of the rights of any other human life on them.
So it stands to reason the child after being born is afforded these same rights.
There are laws in nearly every State, and I believe on the national level, against willful indifference to suffering or mortal danger. ie, you can't stand there and watch a neighbor knifed to death, and not call 911, or yell, or put forth some effort. If someone needs CPR, and you are CPR certified and do nothing, you can be held partially responsible, etc.
If my "beliefs" say I can sacrifice a new born on the full moon, guess what?
My beliefs are wrong.
That these parents "believe" they're right, does not make them right. This is obvious to sane people.
That there was a time when such medicine was not available (as someone pointed out on the other side) has no bearing on the situation whatsoever. The law deals with specific cases, as should our moral compass I believe. The "what ifs" play no role, as in "what if" it was a thousand years ago when this happened. It wasn't a thousand years ago. And it's inherent on us as a society to deal in the here and now, and we've determined as a society, that allowing suffering and death when it is within our power to stop it is not only morally wrong, but illegal.
Both of these parents should be treated no different in the eyes of the law than someone who sneaks in the window at night and kills a child.
That person may well "believe" in their twisted mind they are doing the right thing also.
Both actions lead to a child's death. Those parents killed their child, no one else.
Well, you're not likely to get on a jury if you've already pre-judged the case. ;)
I'm not aware of these "willful indifference" laws. In a lot of cases I've encountered, if you have no legal "duty to care" you can glibly watch someone in critical danger and not do crap. Likewise, you are absolved of duty if you would endanger yourself or others, or if the person does not consent to a medical treatment such as CPR. If you give CPR to someone without their consent, you can get sued.
Even in a case where the child died I would want to know a number of things before I held the parents legally responsible.
First, did they know that the child was in life-threatening danger? Second, if so, what were they doing about it? Third, how successful was the "modern" treatment likely to be, and how successful was the chosen alternative likely to be? And fourth, what were the parents' reasons for refusing "conventional, modern" medical treatment?
As an example: in one case I encountered, the child of a Native American couple died of a secondary infection caused by a tooth abcess. The parents had absolutely no idea that a tooth abcess could be fatal, firmly believed that social services was actively "taking Native children away" (which they sort of were at the time - I believe this case was from the 60s), and had been treating the abcess with the same herbal medicines that their tribe had been successfully using to treat tooth problems in infants for hundreds of years.
Should we jail these people? I would argue no - because of the facts on those four questions: awareness of the extent of the danger, chosen course of action, reasonability of that course, and reason for refusing "modern" treatment.
Side: It depends
I hadn't expected to see anything in the "yes" column either but there they are. When it comes to religion 've seen Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists and Scientologists withold treatment because of their beliefs. Whether or not one should impose these beliefs on their children is just wrong in my book but often the child has no choice in the matter. Not having that choice or the wits to understand the consequences is, unfortunately in the hands of the parents...and that's is just so wrong.
You obviously know nothing about stem cell research. Stem cells are not taken from potential baby´s - theyr are taken from eggs that are inseminated but do not go any further than that - so they would be washed out on the womans next period if they wouldnt be used for scientific means. Women produce many eggs and when a man and a women make a baby - many of the eggs get inseminated, but not all become babys. By you logic, any woman who has had a child is a serial killer.
It is exactly this sort of ill informed bullshit that you religious lot eat out of each other that causes these parents to act like they do - This caveman-ish herd mentality
You are either very young or a complete moron
It is highly unfair, the child doesn't have to conform to his or her parent's ways, especially if they can get real healing. If anything, it's just going to encourage the child to move away from his or her religion because of the parent's "faith healing" beliefs. Now I'm not saying it would never work , but its obvious its not working most of the time, and should be considered only as a last resort. Please, save your child suffering and give him/her the medicine he needs, it should be against the law and considered child abuse not to help your own child when he has a infection, cold, disease, etc. (Isn't it child abuse already?).
No it is not right, when you consider that the child has not yet had the opportunity to decide whether or not that is going to be their path in this life. You cannot make judgements that could threaten your child's life just because it goes against your religion in some way.
God or whoever you worship will not like you more if your child dies as a sacrifice.
A child cannot make their own decisions; they cannot say that they want medical care and have their wishes honored. Even if children did have the choice, many would parrot their parents views, not recognizing the implication of their actions.
Parents should not have the option of letting their child die, because it is not their life and it is not their choice.
Just a note, these are often the same people that oppose abortion- and terminating a clump of cells is better than letting a fully functional being die? That's ridiculous.
Depends on the treatment, the alternatives, and the consequences of a yes-or-no decision.
I agree that "faith healing" in the face of potentially fatal illness is very problematic and I am frankly surprised that Oregon has taken such a hands-off approach. My impression is that it is more common for government to intervene (or to allow intervention) if the condition is life-threatening. And as a general matter, I personally would be more likely to support intervention despite parental wishes if the child's condition is imminently life-threatening than if it is not. But I would also argue that there is a significant difference between the kid who needs an immediate life-saving surgery to which the parents object, and the kid whose school requires him to get a flu shot to which the parents object.
The alternatives to treatment are, I think, very relevant. Is the child being treated in some fashion other than by modern Western medicine - with natural medicines, for example? In such a case, if the child is receiving medical treatment by a qualified person who is a naturopath or some other kind of medical practitioner rather than an MD, that strikes me as more of a parental choice issue in most situations.
The consequences of the proposed treatment are also relevant. If the "modern medical treatment" has severe side-effects or is untested, it might be perfectly reasonable for parents to refuse its administration to their child.
The age and choice of the child may also be relevant. If the "child" is 16 (as opposed to, say, 5), then it might also be appropriate to consider the wishes of the child.
So the answer I would support is . . . it depends.
Side: It depends
Ok I was more going for terminal illnesses than a kid getting a flu shot
But there you guys go again with that decrepit word "natural" - there is nothing more natural about homeopathic medicine then real medicine - You have fallen for their marketing
Natural is an antonym to fictional or fantasy - it is not an antonym to artifical. A spiderweb is artifical (made by a spider), an electronic device is artificial (made by humans); both are natural, that is adhere to natural laws
I haven't fallen for any marketing. I have noted that alternatives to Western medicine do exist and are used by many people.
nat⋅u⋅ral /ˈnætʃərəl, ˈnætʃrəl/ [nach-er-uhl, nach-ruhl]
1. existing in or formed by nature (opposed to artificial ): a natural bridge.
2. based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature: Growth is a natural process.
...6. growing spontaneously, without being planted or tended by human hand, as vegetation.
7. having undergone little or no processing and containing no chemical additives: natural food; natural ingredients. Compare organic (def. 11).
Nowhere in the 38 definitions of "natural" is it listed as an "antonym to fictional or fantasy." The closest definition matching yours is "having a real or physical existence, as opposed to one that is spiritual, intellectual, fictitious, etc." This is number eight on the definitional list, and I would argue that it is not the "natural" construction of the word "natural." More common antonyms for "fictional" or "fantastic" would include "grave, ordinary, real, serious, sincere, unfanciful, unimaginative, unromantic, common, commonplace, conventional, customary, familiar, ordinary, plain, usual, actual, certain, confirmed, factual, genuine, proven, true" -- in fact "natural" is not listed at all among the antonyms of "fictional," "fanciful," "fantastic," or "fictitious" as given on thesaurus.com.
A spiderweb exists in nature. Effexor does not. A spiderweb is formed by organic processes. Adrucil is not.
Pharmaceutical drugs are not "natural", although they are derived from natural products - products that are then put through any number of chemical refining processes to produce a patentable drug. You are using the word "natural" in multiple senses and that does not work as a logical premise. Of course pharmaceuticals operate accoring to natural laws such as the dictates of biochemistry. That is not the same as being a "natural" substance and does not make those drugs "natural" in the sense of "existing in nature, constituted by nature, growing in nature, or organic."
Side: It depends
Basically, because modern medicine exists, the argument is made that it must be used to treat the sick.
If we lived a thousand years ago, parents who used faith as their sole method of healing would not have been found guilty of any wrongdoing.
There are many reasons to oppose certain procedures/medication used in modern times. You can oppose them on moral grounds, such as the use of vivisection in the creation of the procedure. Or because perhaps you believe overmedication to be a major problem, you choose to avoid using it unless absolutely necessary.
At what degree does a parent's veering from medical opinion become criminal?
If someone wants to raise their child the natural way, who are we to say otherwise? It was, afterall, the only way for most of human history.
... raise their kids "the natural way"
Ok lets get something straight - something being modern or artificial does not make it unnatural in a strict sense of the word (an atom bomb is completely natural, otherwise it wouldn't work)
the tradition of using natural as an antonym to artificial is factually incorrect although it is used allot like that in innocent ways in daily speech ( the usage stems from religious ideology as with something being divine as apposed to diabolical and is not to be taken as an accurate description of reality)
Just because people in desperate times hung on to superstitions in the hope of curing illnesses does not make it moral today when they no longer have to: If you are caught with your friend on a mountain and you can make it back but he cant and you have a cell phone (and reception is good) but your superstitious creed is against the use of cell phones it is still in general immoral not to use the phone.
Ofcourse there are degrees to when you can veer from traditional/modern medicine - and that degree is quite exact : it is when modern medicine doesnt have a treatment or when a shadow has been cast on a certain type of treatment (with scientific means and not moronic citations to ancient dogmas)
Well, Pung, you've certainly got a lot of emotionalism, but not so many facts or specifics.
You also certainly seem to have a blind faith in modern medicine. Gee, I'd think that if modern medicine was such a perfect paragon, medical and pharmaceutical class-action suits wouldn't be the booming legal businesses that they are. Huh.
And your quick dismissal of "moronic . . . ancient dogmas" makes an awful lot of scientifically incorrect assumptions about the mind-body connection -- for example, it wrongly assumes that one's belief that one will get well has no effect on whether or not one will get well, which is contrary to contemporary medical research.
Your "exact" degree of limited personal choice also suggests that we should all be forced to "take our medicine" no matter what that medicine may be, and despite any legitimate concerns as to whether or not the medicine is necessary and appropriate. Should a person in terminal stages of cancer be forced to continue chemotherapy? It's a "treatment", and a proven one . . . but not a cure; and not the only form of cancer treatment; and one with serious and dehabilitating side effects. Should all children be forced to get flu shots, regardless of whether the parents believe them to be medically necessary or wise? It's a "treatment", and a proven one -- but not really a necessary one, and certainly not a lifesaving one. Should we then arrest the parents who choose chicken soup and vitamin C over flu shots for "hanging on to superstition"?
Ultimately it comes down to this: Is it the State or the parent who should be responsible for making decisions for a minor child - and how far does that responsibility extend?
Side: It depends
"the tradition of using natural as an antonym to artificial is factually incorrect"
nat⋅u⋅ral /ˈnætʃərəl, ˈnætʃrəl/ [nach-er-uhl, nach-ruhl]
1. existing in or formed by nature (opposed to artificial )
c.1300, naturel, "of one's inborn character, of the world of nature (especially as opposed to man)," from O.Fr. naturel, from L. naturalis "by birth, according to nature," from natura "nature" (see nature).
c.1300, "essential qualities, innate disposition," also "creative power in the material world," from O.Fr. nature, from L. natura "course of things, natural character, the universe," lit. "birth," from natus "born," pp. of nasci "to be born," from PIE *gene- "to give birth, beget" (see genus).
c.1382, "made by man" (opposite of natural), from O.Fr. artificial, from L. artificialis "of or belonging to art," from artificium (see artifice).
1. made by human skill; produced by humans (opposed to natural)
Side: It depends