Do Parents Have the Right To Refuse Medical Treatment for Faith Healing?

Originally posted by biggmoneyme
they shouldn't. sure miraculous things can and do happen but technology is more convenient and reliable right now. it may not always be like but right now it is. I think people at the local level should intervene. no one belongs to anyone. and besides im sure this could be interpreted as abuse/neglect

True, and what a lot of these people don't take into consideration is that every person's gifts come from God. That would include a doctor who has the desire and gifts to help others medically.

reply to post by NOTurTypical



Better this , though sad. Then some Govt agency telling you or rather forcing you do do things to your children
you disagree with, parents are above govt in regards to their children,the alternative is a STATIST'S wet dream.

Originally posted by buster2010
Yes parents have that right to make that decision. As sad as it may be it is the parents right to do what is best for that child and if prayer is their choice then that's final. It isn't the governments place to tell someone their religion is wrong.

it IS wrong, and it IS the government place, when that religious belief causes harm to others...and that is the exact reason why any religion should be tightly monitored and controlled. enough with this 14th century mindset of mythical beings having power over someone

Originally posted by buster2010
It isn't the governments place to tell someone their religion is wrong.

I agree to an extent; however, is it the parents place to choose a religion for their children? That is what it comes down to really. The parents are fully withing their rights, as legal adults, to deny medical care on their own behalf due to religious beliefs. But that is where their constitutionally protected "freedom of religion" ends; at their own person. No one has a right to choose another person's religious preferences; even if that other person is your child.

Originally posted by buster2010
Yes parents have that right to make that decision. As sad as it may be it is the parents right to do what is best for that child and if prayer is their choice then that's final. It isn't the governments place to tell someone their religion is wrong.

But what about the rights of the child? Don't we as a society need to protect all children? We remove them from abusive situations, would this not qualify?

I'm not disagreeing with your opinion, I'm just having a discussion.

Originally posted by Zngland
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Better this , though sad. Then some Govt agency telling you or rather forcing you do do things to your children
you disagree with, parents are above govt in regards to their children,the alternative is a STATIST'S wet dream.

God help us.

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by buster2010
Yes parents have that right to make that decision. As sad as it may be it is the parents right to do what is best for that child and if prayer is their choice then that's final. It isn't the governments place to tell someone their religion is wrong.

it IS wrong, and it IS the government place, when that religious belief causes harm to others...and that is the exact reason why any religion should be tightly monitored and controlled. enough with this 14th century mindset of mythical beings having power over someone

It isn't the government's place in regards to the Constitution. A person's free exercise of religion is protected. It's sad, no doubt, but government taking away rights and liberties is far worse.

Originally posted by smyleegrl

Originally posted by buster2010
Yes parents have that right to make that decision. As sad as it may be it is the parents right to do what is best for that child and if prayer is their choice then that's final. It isn't the governments place to tell someone their religion is wrong.

But what about the rights of the child? Don't we as a society need to protect all children? We remove them from abusive situations, would this not qualify?

I'm not disagreeing with your opinion, I'm just having a discussion.

If people gave two squirts of goat piss about the "rights of the child" abortion would he outlawed..

Let's be real for a second here.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by smyleegrl

Originally posted by buster2010
Yes parents have that right to make that decision. As sad as it may be it is the parents right to do what is best for that child and if prayer is their choice then that's final. It isn't the governments place to tell someone their religion is wrong.

But what about the rights of the child? Don't we as a society need to protect all children? We remove them from abusive situations, would this not qualify?

I'm not disagreeing with your opinion, I'm just having a discussion.

If people gave two squirts of goat piss about the "rights of the child" abortion would he outlawed..

Let's be real for a second here.

You're avoiding the question. We're not discussing abortion, but faith healing.

I believe refusing treatment for faith healing is one slippery slope.

On one hand people have the right to decide what happens with their bodies. On the other hand, who is influencing the decision? Do people turn to faith healing because their full trust is in God, or have they come under the spell of a con-man/woman?

There is a case of this in East TN. Over 10 years ago man convinced a couple to do faith healing for their teen age daughter instead of getting medical treatment for a rare cancer. Of course the young girl died. Last year the parents were convicted of misdemeanor neglect.

Fast forward to a some months ago and the oh-so-righteous man that believed so firmly in faith healing got treatment at a hospital for his own cancer. He also died.

More of that story here: Faith-healer sought medical care while recommending against same for teen

For me, I think medicine and faith should be used. But as for how the law handles it, I just can't decide if freedom to decide is more important than protection from poor decision and influence.

For me, I think medicine and faith should be used. But as for how the law handles it, I just can't decide if freedom to decide is more important than protection from poor decision and influence.

reply to post by OneisOne


Very well put. This is exactly what is troubling me about this case and similar cases.

I don't see an easy solution.

Originally posted by smyleegrl

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by smyleegrl

Originally posted by buster2010
Yes parents have that right to make that decision. As sad as it may be it is the parents right to do what is best for that child and if prayer is their choice then that's final. It isn't the governments place to tell someone their religion is wrong.

But what about the rights of the child? Don't we as a society need to protect all children? We remove them from abusive situations, would this not qualify?

I'm not disagreeing with your opinion, I'm just having a discussion.

If people gave two squirts of goat piss about the "rights of the child" abortion would he outlawed..

Let's be real for a second here.

You're avoiding the question. We're not discussing abortion, but faith healing.

I already gave my thoughts on that. I took exception to your claim that society had some sort of responsibility to protect and look out for the rights of defenseless children and infants.

That was determined at Roe V Wade. Babies have no rights to life if parents decide they should die. Do you not see the glaring hypocrisy in your post when compared to legal abortion in this country, ESPECIALLY in regards to partial or post-birth abortions??

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by buster2010
Yes parents have that right to make that decision. As sad as it may be it is the parents right to do what is best for that child and if prayer is their choice then that's final. It isn't the governments place to tell someone their religion is wrong.

it IS wrong, and it IS the government place, when that religious belief causes harm to others...and that is the exact reason why any religion should be tightly monitored and controlled. enough with this 14th century mindset of mythical beings having power over someone

It isn't the government's place in regards to the Constitution. A person's free exercise of religion is protected. It's sad, no doubt, but government taking away rights and liberties is far worse.

"free exercise" does not mean having the power to do harm to others, if that's the case, then you will not mind having Islamic sharia law telling you what to do.

I already gave my thoughts on that. I took exception to your claim that society had some sort of responsibility to protect and look out for the rights of defenseless children and infants. That was determined at Roe V Wade. Babies have no rights to life if parents decide they should die. Do you not see the glaring hypocrisy in your post when compared to legal abortion in this country, ESPECIALLY in regards to partial or post-birth abortions??

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Actually, I see no hypocrisy at all as I never once mentioned abortions in the OP.

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by buster2010
Yes parents have that right to make that decision. As sad as it may be it is the parents right to do what is best for that child and if prayer is their choice then that's final. It isn't the governments place to tell someone their religion is wrong.

it IS wrong, and it IS the government place, when that religious belief causes harm to others...and that is the exact reason why any religion should be tightly monitored and controlled. enough with this 14th century mindset of mythical beings having power over someone

It isn't the government's place in regards to the Constitution. A person's free exercise of religion is protected. It's sad, no doubt, but government taking away rights and liberties is far worse.

"free exercise" does not mean having the power to do harm to others, if that's the case, then you will not mind having Islamic sharia law telling you what to do.

Non sequitur.

And in this case the parents didn't inflict harm to their child, they felt their religion called for prayer and faith. It's a matter of the free exercise clause of the first amendment. In which the government is prevented from interfering in a person's right to freely exercise their religion. I myself would have taken my child to the doctor, but I can't force my views in regards to religion on another individual if they practice their's differently.

Originally posted by smyleegrl

I already gave my thoughts on that. I took exception to your claim that society had some sort of responsibility to protect and look out for the rights of defenseless children and infants. That was determined at Roe V Wade. Babies have no rights to life if parents decide they should die. Do you not see the glaring hypocrisy in your post when compared to legal abortion in this country, ESPECIALLY in regards to partial or post-birth abortions??

reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Actually, I see no hypocrisy at all as I never once mentioned abortions in the OP.

I never said you did, straw man.

You did ask if we need to protect the rights of children. Which mysteriously isn't a concern when the abortion debate comes around. When that happens apparently the children have no rights.

That's the epitome of hypocrisy.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by smyleegrl

Originally posted by buster2010
Yes parents have that right to make that decision. As sad as it may be it is the parents right to do what is best for that child and if prayer is their choice then that's final. It isn't the governments place to tell someone their religion is wrong.

But what about the rights of the child? Don't we as a society need to protect all children? We remove them from abusive situations, would this not qualify?

I'm not disagreeing with your opinion, I'm just having a discussion.

If people gave two squirts of goat piss about the "rights of the child" abortion would he outlawed..

Let's be real for a second here.

the fetus is part of, and inside the womans body, a distinction you are unable or incapable of grasping, exactly the reason that any religion should be tightly monitored and controlled.

If the parents really practiced faith their children would not be dying. To let them die when help is a phone call away is ludicrous.

There was a flood and a man climbed onto his roof to wait for God to rescue him. A canoe floated by and the man in it said climb down I am here to rescue you.

No, the man said I am waiting for God to save me.

Later a boat filled with refugees came by and the people extolled the man to come down and be rescued but the man stood fast declaring his faith in God.

Then a helicopter arrived and lowered a rope. The man refused to climb the rope he was determined to rely on his faith.

Finally he died and went before God and demanded to know why God had forsaken him even though he was devoutly faithful to the end.

I heard your call, God said. I sent a canoe, a boat and a helicopter , what more do you want?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by smyleegrl

I already gave my thoughts on that. I took exception to your claim that society had some sort of responsibility to protect and look out for the rights of defenseless children and infants. That was determined at Roe V Wade. Babies have no rights to life if parents decide they should die. Do you not see the glaring hypocrisy in your post when compared to legal abortion in this country, ESPECIALLY in regards to partial or post-birth abortions??

reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Actually, I see no hypocrisy at all as I never once mentioned abortions in the OP.

I never said you did, straw man.

You did ask if we need to protect the rights of children. Which mysteriously isn't a concern when the abortion debate comes around. When that happens apparently the children have no rights.

That's the epitome of hypocrisy.

edit on 25-4-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

If you're going to insist on continuing to bring abortion into this discussion, WHEN IT IS EXPRESSLY NOT MENTIONED IN THE OP, then I'll just ignore you.

Talk about strawman.

Can I ask a question about this?
How is this different than all the people choosing not to immunize their children? (besides the religion, I get that)
If your child gets a disease, that could have been prevented from having it, should you go to jail? Is that child abuse?


Personally, I think not. And as sad as this story is, and as mad as I am at the parents, and the poor babies needless suffering, it is their choice.