It's not a presumption. I have seen people (mostly teenagers) told that sex can be safe. To many teens who I know personally this means to them that they can have more and more sex.


That's absolutely ridiculous. If I were to marry someone I would want to know their sexual history. If a woman were to claim that because I investigate her I don't trust her and ends up not marrying because of it then I didn't need to be with her. To investigate is to be safe and to have knowledge. Not to mention that in any such a relationship information like sexual history should be brought to the table before marriage is even considered.


I know that, however, I am an optomist and would presume that a marriage has two honorable people who wouldn't do such abhorrent things as cheat on their spouse.


I perfectly understand how cheating in such a situation could occur. It happens when people choose bad spouses and don't thoroughly investigate and determine within themselves if the relationship is right for them

In any case, I don't know how we got SOOOO off-topic.

Blood transfusions are certainly not bad medical practice. They have saved a great many people's lives.

Your position is not only common sense but also superior morally and socially responsible (neither have anything to do with religion). It should be commended. I have never heard of someone advocating premarital sex except highly irresponsible people. It happens more often than not but that does not make it wise in any case. Sure some of us might be hypocrites advocating this position but just because we made mistakes in our past does not mean we have to deny the truth.

Yes. Without blood tranfusions, my dad wouldn't be here right now. And that is why they screen for diseases. IMO there is absolutely no reason to let your child die when there is a procedure that will save them.

It's not my position, I am merely a mirror which reflects the light of the Torah. It is good that you see God's truth and understand it is good. May God Bless You!

Neither my mum or I would be alive but for blood transfusions either.
I agree and I believe the parents of the child in this case are guilty of neglect and manslaughter.

There are many things people can't live without.... *sigh* I sometimes wish people would let go of things (like much religion) that stops humanity as a whole to draw fully on the potential of all our great brains to evolve and research amazing things. We could evolve into a paradise if we wanted too.

We should also respect other people's religious views and not expect them to change because our views differ. When such views harm others it then might become a legal matter and even then it will differ from state to state. The law in the end though allows many things that one might not agree with such as abortion when the life (not lifestyle) of the mother is not threatened. When it comes to hurting others there is also a big difference between hurting others in the general public and parenting that might involve harm to a child. They are not the same legally or philosophically. Most likely the laws of Wisconsin will either change to reflect the majority view or they might remain the same to protect the minority and diversity. Either way I do not agree with either, discarding traditional medicine in favor of faith healing, or avoiding blood transfusions, but I am more sympathetic towards the Jehovah's Witnesses' view since it is less radical. I still recognize the values and traditions of greater society should not necessarily be impinged on others just because we disagree.

In the end simple condemnation helps no one. Attempting to understand why and perhaps a campaign of education targeted towards those holding harmful beliefs might have more results.

I don't understand why you feel it important to write this... do you realy feel the people debating here needs to be told this? This is about the murder of a child. Sorry for pointing you out specifically but I don't understand why people in these threads again and again point out things that is obvious do you feel it supports the more "radical" opinions you present before you round up the post with common sense?

I read many posts that in my eyes go a little like... "I believe that men has the right to beat woman when they feel like it because they are stronger" (a radical opinion) and then rounds it up with "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions as long they don't hurt anyone" (common sense)

I would say if they let their child die because they refused blood transfusion for them they should be charged with both neglect and manslaughter and rightfully face criminal prosecution. Adults can do this if they want, but they should never ever force it on to their children, that is nothing more than child abuse under another guise.

See, I disagree. Being a parent does not entitle you to letting your child die. You do not 'own' your children. By becoming a parent you should be fully prepared to do what is best for the child, and refusing medical treatment for your child is irresponsible. It is too easy to say 'freedom of religion' and do what they 'believe' because of it. These people are sacrificing their children and causing them pain that is not necessary. Any religion that says that is the right way is a horrible one, IMO.

Exactly you have a legal responsibility to take care of your child, you fail to do that on religious grounds your a criminal. There is absolutely no excuse.

I also agree being a parent does not entitle anyone in allowing their child die. My qualm is with how far the state should have the power to enforce our beliefs on others. In the same token you claim we do not 'own' our children I do not think the state 'owns' them either. The state does look for the best interests of all members of society especially the most vulnerable. It is a fine line though where parental rights end and the state's control begins. I do fall more on the side that parental rights end when the death or serious harm of a child might occur so I think there is no disagreement in that. The only thing I disagreed with in your original was the 'absolutely no reason' part of the statement below:



You see the above is a narrow view and ignores the many other situations when things are not so clear cut and dry. I am speaking mainly about the situation that developed between the parents of Katie Wernecke and the state. If anyone remembers the Katie Wernecke story then they will understand where I am coming from.

Do you mean after her parents eventually dropped their case after it was proven that Katie Wernecke did actually need more treatment?
It really is that clear. You have no right to force your child into not receiving proper medical care, to do so is child abuse.

If anyone is not aware of the Katie Wernecke the following three links will help inform. The first is the latest news article I could find and the second and third are the actual blog of the family that detailed the struggle between the parents and the state. In the end the parents won which was a great victory in my eyes. The state did put them through a terrible time and this is why we must avoid granting the state too much power that would supersede parental rights.



http://www.caller.com/news/2007/jun/12/wer...ederal-lawsuit/



http://www.prayforkatie1.blogspot.com/



http://prayforkatie.blogspot.com/

No, as the above post shows that was not the case. It was an issue of the doctors insisting the child needed more chemotherapy and radiation treatment and her parents saying it was causing their daughter and pain and suffering. Instead they chose alternative treatments which the doctors responded by claiming as you have 'it was child abuse'. CPS took custody of the child but in the end the Texas Supreme Court said the parents were in the right and it very would could have ended tragically for their child and it was a gamble on whether the alternative treatment they were pursuing would even work. In the end parental rights won over state control which to me makes more sense because there is more horror that can happen the other way when it comes to medical and health related issues. No one should have their children taken away just because they disagree with doctors and refuse their services even if it means a tragedy as in Wisconsin will occur it will also mean that tragedies such as in Katie's case will never occur.

This parents playing with their child's life because of their beliefs.
As someone who has had lymphoma, I can assure you there are reasons for the treatment and for continuing it when for the full course.

Well it had nothing to do with religion but it did have to do with their beliefs of the best course of action in helping their child. The parents won though and rightly so. Especially when it comes to cancer there is a big huge debate and belief that traditional medicine loses too many patients and is profit driven while alternative treatments work better. I do not have much information regarding that debate so my opinion is vastly limited on which is better. There are also other factors that might come into play when a hospital refuses a certain operation that could save a child's life because the parent's cannot afford it. In those cases should the state compel the hospital's to perform such procedures?

Anyone refusing their child to receive medical treatment on religious grounds is a criminal simple as because it is clearly not the child's interests that are foremost to them in the situation.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8181542/ If you are interested.

See, I don't see it as a narrow view, I see it as a parent who loves her child and would do anything to ensure that she had medical treatment when it was available, not to just say, 'God will take care of her'. When there are innocent children being used as pawns in the fight for freedom of religion, then yes, there definitely needs to be some more looking into this whole area of the law.

Thank you. I was interested in the case when it was ongoing and kept close tabs on it. The above article you linked was one stage within the development of the case. That is not how it ended. The parents did eventually fight back and won through the opinion of their state's Supreme Court. The final news I have heard was posted above in where the parents are now suing for the damage incurred by the doctors and Child Protective Services efforts.

Do you realise that if they let the care continue its full course she would have been clear of cancer instead of leaving it for over a year. The parents are idiots in my opinion.

The state of Texas disagrees with your opinion and respectfully so do I. In the future in this state no parent or family will have to suffer as they did.

Could care less, I know a hell of a lot more than you do about lymphoma and biology in general. If they let receive the full course of treatment she would be cured by now.
As for the state of Texas, I would be inclined that the decision was politically motivated and I still think the parents are idiots.


Just to add do think it was right of them to refuse their daughter a blood transfusion from anyone except her mother despite her being the wrong type.

They may have saved some lives; but as more and more research is showing, there are far more cons than pros involved with them. Did you read through any of the links I posted? Google it for yourself? Or did you just throw out a response as a knee-jerk reaction to anyone showing belief in a religion?

No, I take from experience, from knowledge of general biology and from being alive due to a blood transfusion.
I am not saying a bloodless operation is not preferential because clearly it is. However sometime blood transfusions are the only way to save some ones life and if some one refused their child this on religious grounds they are guilty in my eyes.

Trust me, sweetie.... if they tried to put that blood in my child, I would fight them tooth and nail, especially since they have a bloodless surgery unit, with non-blood expanders, available here. I am NOT taking the risk of putting something that could carry a horrible disease (I don't care HOW well they screen it; it's been shown that things still get missed) into my child, when there is a much better option available. I'm sorry if you disagree with that, but it's not YOUR child.

I'm sorry so if your child lost a tremendous amount of blood through an accident you would not let them give them a transfusion? That is what I am asking.
1 in 50000 is pretty low odds on getting a infection from a transfusion.

Bravo to you lady! And such is your right...

To each their own belief.....but to let a life end just when it is starting......

That is not answering the question I asked though.
If it was life or death that her child got a transfusion (and such situations can arise).

And what about the child's rights?

God works through Doctors. What ashame, so sad

FJ summed it up best methinks.

Not to me. My child has the right to live. And if it takes a blod tranfusion to do, that's what she will be getting. The minimal chance of getting a disease against certain death? I'll take the odds of my child surviving and crossing that bridge of a disease later.

But it is not her life and the child is not her property.

No one is bregruding you that right. It is the right of other parents over their children that some wish to take away.



Parent's and legal guardians have the right to make certain decisions for their children and charges. No one is claiming children are property...

Not if it costs them their lives they don't.

I agree, Mattshark. I don't see how anyone could consign their child to death when there was medical help right there waiting to save them.

Which again leads to the point. Because you do not understand and have no clue in how others believe your view cannot lend itself to help solve these situations. Mere condemnation does not help. Understanding the issue then offering targeted education to those who hold those beliefs might help steer people away from those beliefs. Without understanding though it is impossible to change anyone's beliefs unless of course you simply just want to ram your beliefs down their throats...something that should not be favored, ever!

No mere condemnation does not help, this is why we have to have social services.

...and laws.

Well, I think you should have said this in your last response. I need to tell you, that many teenagers I know, two of them being in my family, don't think that, and have a lot of responsiblity. Granted, you have seen this yourself, so I can understand where you would believe this. I just do not think you can say everyone should feel the same way, for every place and every teenager is different.



Well, you and I are different there. Granted there is knowing someone and telling them about you right up front, but that is because it's good to tell them. One shouldn't have to demand a sexual history. Plus, I personally think it demeans a relationship that way as well.



You can presume on your marriage all you want, what gets me, is others presuming everyone else's marriage for you. That goes along with telling you how you should conduct your sexlife and think it's ok, because they presume everyone's marriage is going to be a safe protecting shield, when in reality it's not. We're talking about giving advice, which I see you doing, to talking about your own marriage. Two different things, I think. You can do and think your own marriage all you want, but don't say it's that way, to others who view it, and know it's more than that. You even put that you assume the marriage will have two honorable people in it, and not that the marriage will be honorable itself. And it's more realistic to say, that not all marriages come with two even one honorable person in it. With that in mind, I wish so many pro-marriage advocates would stop declaring how wonderful marriage is as a generalization, when each marriage is different from one marriage to another. Whether two honorable people go into or not, that still doesn't make marriage itself a protective shield from the dangers so expressed in unmarried relationships.




That means, so many people have choosen bad spouses! How did they do that? People change, and people can pretend. It happens. I don't get this statement and the meaning behind it. There is a lot more to marriage, then what you think. I'm sorry, but this is what I am seeing in my observation here.



Talking about sex, and someone brought up the couple in question's sexlife. I think. In which, I don't know why they did that.

Ohhhhhhhhh, I so agree with that!!

Neither which should trump parental rights. Naturally there will be a balance when a child's life is at stake. This is the reason why such cases are so important. Wisconsin will decide as a state in this matter and most likely the parents in question will not receive a harh sentence but equally likely is the law will change. There does exist a balance and difference as well between judicial and legislative branches concering this matter.


I should add social services does a terrible job at least in many of the states in America.

Saddly to say though clovis , its in homes by parents that are entrusted to care for thier children they don't.. As a parent i am glad that we have CPS a organization that protexts the rights of a child......

I happen to be one of the kids that because of CPS intervention as a young girl, a life was saved, do i think sometimes CPS gets it wrong at times "yes" are they infallable "No'...its a sad state of affairs when you have to have a service to protect children from their own parents....In this culture we have parents who are not prepared to be parents...


I do feel that as a culture we can be far better prepared to understand and guide children....As a matter of fact i also feel we should have schools that do just this....there is no greater need for self correction than in the area of parenting, the hardest part for most guides is to be willing to get outside of their box to truly consider what is best for another....

if a parent is praying over their child instead of getting them medical care i would say they could use some help or perhaps they should not be parents at all....I have no issue with what one beleives until it harms another and this is a all to common of a story ....

Actually once the parents put the child's life at risk for their beliefs they have given up their parental rights.
I hope Wisconsin finds those parents guilty of manslaughter and child abuse because that is what they are guilty of. Yes there has to be a balance and refusing medical care for your child when it is need means you have tipped it.

Social services do not at all do a terrible job, they are just not given the support they need and the help the job warrants. My mum is an ex social worker and she worked in child protection and some of the things she had to deal were beyond sickening.

Social services does a terrible job and definitely needs continued reform at least in my state. It has come under fire numerous times and there have been way too many children that die on their watch. Here is an unrelated humorous poem:



http://www.geocities.com/mclane65/cps.html

That is the way I feel.

This information might not be current since it is from an article from 1999.



http://www.baptiststandard.com/1999/2_17/pages/healing.html