Judge rules hospital can perform life-saving surgery on two-month-old against parents religious obje

reply to post by Autumnal



Guarantee we're paying for it, it's a court order. Just like when someone is sued? Do you think the defendant pays out of pocket? No the tax payers pick up the tab.

Originally posted by Domo1
reply to post by oghamxx

 

Correct decision. Parents rights end when the well being of the child is not a first priority. What if their religion required the sacrifice of the oldest child?

Wrong. regardless of your moral beliefs, under the LAW, the parents have a right to freedom of religion under the Constitution.

If their religious beliefs bar surgery of any kind, this is the path that the judge should have taken.

While I don't condone this behaviour from the parents, under the letter of the law, the judge would actually have no choice.

I would expect an appeal.

Originally posted by DoctorMobius
reply to post by Autumnal

 

Guarantee we're paying for it, it's a court order. Just like when someone is sued? Do you think the defendant pays out of pocket? No the tax payers pick up the tab.

What? Completely wrong. When the defendant has a judgement against them, the defendant pays, not the tax payer.

reply to post by babybunnies


Does the child have a religion?

If I being a 22 year old Atheist.. had an accident and my parents wanted to deny a blood transfusion because they are Jehovah's witness (they aren't actually), because despite me openly claiming me an atheist, they still projected their religion into my medical care, how would you feel then? It's my parents religion, not mine. But I am unable to object to my parents decision, since they would be the next of kin.

Keep in mind. Despite that the difference here is a grown adult, the child has had no chance to decide their religion in a competent manner and therefore cannot adhere to a religious principle. So it's not really any different.

reply to post by babybunnies


Lawyer at no cost, paid by state
You sue but the person impossibly cannot pay, paid by state

I know nothing about Jehovah's witness beliefs (except the dreaded knock on the door) but personally I consider my afterlife much more important than my life. That is fine for me but could I impose that on my infant child? Probably yes, civil authority be damned.

Abraham and Isaac? Not exactly but if God lead me to my beliefs, so be it.

This is a slippery-slope which will set legal precedents, as it already has. Today, it's surgery to save a life. Tomorrow, it will be a vaccine to save a life. To-may-to, to-mah-to.

Perhaps hard lines drawn in the sand may culminate in a great deal of mud in your swimming trunks. I don't like the idea of allowing these parents to place their faith in their god above their faith in contemporary medicine because of the risk to the infant who hasn't chosen that religion. However, I also don't like the idea of the state taking my child to get vaccines while I'm duct-taped to the roof of a cruiser attempting to summon a nefarious demon hell-bent on protecting the rights of the body sovereign.

This is a lesser-of-two-evils dilemma.

It seems to me that either the state is responsible for the child, or the parents are.

I'll take my chances on the parents - a few will not survive with the parents.

A LOT will not with the state.

Some people think the tree of liberty is only watered by the blood of young soldiers.
I'd disagree. I hate it for the kid, but maybe some genes in the genepool don't need propping up anyway.