Family who chose prayer over medicine

[ambelamba]

Involuntary manslaughter by mishap.

[Midyin]

The state should take any children that they have left away from them, and fix bothe him and her, so to make sure they can never kill another kid...

[freetoroam]

The state should take any children that they have left away from them, and fix bothe him and her, so to make sure they can never kill another kid...

Should the state do the same to all the Jehovah witnesses out there too....just incase!

[Frank Merton]

Yea. That is where the idea of the state limiting itself to the minimum amount of interference needed to do what needs to be done becomes good policy. It is not necessary and certainly outrageous for the state to take children away from parents because of their religion, and even children who desperately need blood transfusions do not need to be taken from their parents. You just go ahead and administer the transfusion in spite of the parents. This removes any guilt the parents may feel. It might be best to have a judicial procedure, but often there will be emergencies so medical professionals need prior legal power in this sort of situation. (With the US Constitution as it is I don't think this could be done in the States, but many countries have this sort of thing set up already).

[White Crane Feather]

Yea. That is where the idea of the state limiting itself to the minimum amount of interference needed to do what needs to be done becomes good policy. It is not necessary and certainly outrageous for the state to take children away from parents because of their religion, and even children who desperately need blood transfusions do not need to be taken from their parents. You just go ahead and administer the transfusion in spite of the parents. This removes any guilt the parents may feel. It might be best to have a judicial procedure, but often there will be emergencies so medical professionals need prior legal power in this sort of situation. (With the US Constitution as it is I don't think this could be done in the States, but many countries have this sort of thing set up already).

This is not a bad idea. The problem is when governments end up with powers such as these, they end up being abused. Corporations in the us end up with power of political officials and doctors. These things have nasty ways of evolving into monstrocities in round about ways. When messing with people's rights, even for very good reasons, we have to tead extremely carefully. Freedom is aways on the chopping block. In a real democracy, the people that government serves can end up being the enemy of that government, if that particular government wishes to survive, it must start to erode the fabric of democracy. I'm opposed to anything the erodes freedom simply to mitigate the tiny risks and problems that pop up in large free societies. I have simpathy for others that suffer from the stupidity of others, but if we are going to be free we can make laws for every quirk of humanity and every danger. Pretty soon it will be illegal to sneeze, climb a tree, swim in a river, go camping, etc etc etc. governments will invade homes for safety inspections if you have kids, if one is seriously hurt you will be under investigation for violating a myriad of 'kid safety codes", kids will not be able to play outside, they will look like football players ridding bikes, and worst of all doctors will be able to dictate what medications are kids take and use. Pfizer and monsanto, will have every child with ants in the pants dossed up on ADD medication, depression medication, anti anxiety medications all in the name of compulsirary medical treatment.

No thanks. My right to choose the medical treatment for my child despite what people try to get me to believe must remain with me.

In the most extreme cases, well we have to draw a very careful line in the dirt as a democracy on what medicines parents are forced to give to their kids. Leaving it up to institutions like the FDA, AMA, or CDC would be a horrible mistake. These 'government' institutions are often under heavy influence of corporations with a vested interest.

[Frank Merton]

I am not quite sure what your argument is, but let me respond to what I think it is, which is an excessive valuation of freedom over other needful things. Everything that can be done by society or by families or by corporations or by individuals can be abused. Fires can burn houses down.

The case in point is really quite narrow -- can parents deny their children medical treatment that the medical profession deems necessary because of their religion, or for that matter I suppose for any reason.

Suppose there is a strong argument within the medical profession over whether or not a given treatment helps or hurts. In such cases we would have to say the parents must make the decision.

But when there is no such argument; the medical profession is united or at least very nearly so, people who possess the appropriate licenses -- and this can easily be limited to individuals and not institutions -- can and in many countries do routinely administer without any parental permission all sorts of emergency treatment.

That in the States the concept of Freedom of Religion is given a higher status than the right of a child to a normal life is to me an abuse of the concept of freedom.

[freetoroam]

Who do we hold accountable for this:

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/10/31/flu-vaccination-epa-safety-limit-for-mercury.aspx

or this;

http://vran.org/

Do not get me wrong, I am not anti medicine, but it works both ways and if a parent does not want to use medicines, then it is their choice and there are enough reasons why. the medical profession will not cease making vaccines as long as the majority work, but who is held accountable for the children who it did not work on?

[Bendy Demon]

We CAN NOT force people to use medicines because we do.

Repeatedly doing nothing and then foolishly expecting results every time is NOT medicine at all.

[Midyin]

Should the state do the same to all the Jehovah witnesses out there too....just incase!

I see what you did there. If I say yes then I'm supporting the infringement of religious freedom, but If I say No then you can claim that I'm ok with letting children die...

Your attempt to be clever by askiing a loaded question to force me into a "No win scenario" wasnt clever. it was just translucent and pothetic...

After all, it's just the Internet..

Edited April 28, 2013 by Midyin

[freetoroam]

I see what you did there. If I say yes then I'm supporting the infringement of religious freedom, but If I say No then you can claim that I'm ok with letting children die...

Your attempt to be clever by askiing a loaded question to force me into a "No win scenario" wasnt clever. it was just translucent and pothetic...

After all, it's just the Internet..

And your answer is?

[Midyin]

And your answer is?

We've all seen Minority Report, Hipster. At least I did anyway...