Parental rights

[Luce]

Re: Parental rights

This is a (unfortunately) fairly common occurrence - parents watch as their child dies, trusting to prayer rather than a medical doctor.

The parents in this case were found guilty of second degree murder:

Parents who prayed for sick daughter

Here's a summary of the legal issues involved:



So - the debate question is this-

In you opinion, should parents have a legal right, and immunity from prosecution, for refusing life-saving medical treatments for their children?

There is no correct answer to this question.

On one hand, you have the religious rights of the family.

On the other hand, you have minors put in clear and present danger.

So you run into one of those areas where the dividing line between civil liberty and social responsibility don't blur, they overlap.

- - - Updated - - -

Hell-the-fuck-no....a parents religious rights do not extend to their child's health and welfare.

Or, this:

Let's just expand that a little. Little Johnny is acting up in class. The school consults with a physician, who medicates the kid without the parents' consent "for his health and welfare".

Obviously, the scale of the two situations are very different, but the principle remains the same. The only question is, what is the basic unit for humans? The family or society? A hundred years ago, there would be no question...Family would be the only possible answer. Now, though, it's a lot more fuzzy, as evidenced by what these parents did to their child, and the reaction of both the state (the courts) and society (the court of public opinion).

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Parental rights

Let's just expand that a little. Little Johnny is acting up in class. The school consults with a physician, who medicates the kid without the parents' consent "for his health and welfare".

This does not happen in the US. It is way, way illegal...

- - - Updated - - -

There is no correct answer to this question.

On one hand, you have the religious rights of the family.

On the other hand, you have minors put in clear and present danger.

So you run into one of those areas where the dividing line between civil liberty and social responsibility don't blur, they overlap.

There isn't a problem here - the right to life trumps the right to liberty. Without life, there can be no liberty, civil or otherwise - thus, life is the higher right.

[Aeran]

Re: Parental rights

Absolutely not. Even putting aside the question of whether parents should have the right to harm their children for the sake of ideology, there's absolutely no reason they can't pray AND use real medicine.

[Ophidia]

Re: Parental rights

Personally, I think people should be able to choose whatever type of medical care they prefer most for themselves and their children. If that means no medical care, or relying on some form of quackery, so be it. I think it's stupid to let your kid die of a treatable illness, but I don't feel that it should be considered murder.

[Maria de Luna]

Re: Parental rights

Let's just expand that a little. Little Johnny is acting up in class. The school consults with a physician, who medicates the kid without the parents' consent "for his health and welfare".

Obviously, the scale of the two situations are very different, but the principle remains the same. The only question is, what is the basic unit for humans? The family or society? A hundred years ago, there would be no question...Family would be the only possible answer. Now, though, it's a lot more fuzzy, as evidenced by what these parents did to their child, and the reaction of both the state (the courts) and society (the court of public opinion).

It is more than the scale of the situation here... it's apples and oranges here. a) medicating someone elses child who presents no life threatening issues is completely illegal and will get any number of people losing their jobs b) was Johnny gonna die? no? right different situation. Was johnny going to have a severe mental or physical disability without the parents acting? No? No, I did not think so. It is not even remotely the same situation...
Letting your child die is neglectful, knowing it is going to happen if you keep doing what you are doing is manslaughter. We can talk about religious beliefs all day, but what is illegal remains illegal, religious beliefs or not.

[DanieMarie]

Re: Parental rights

I feel like getting around religious rights isn't that hard here. In a secular society, freedom of religion stops when those religious beliefs restrict the rights and freedoms of other people (especially the right to LIVE). If you believe in honor killings, you still don't get to kill your daughter for disobeying you. If you believe that being gay is a horrible sin, you still don't get to beat up gay people. And if you believe in praying over medical care, you can make those decisions for yourself, but NOT for other people (even if those people are minor and your own children).

- - - Updated - - -

There isn't a problem here - the right to life trumps the right to liberty. Without life, there can be no liberty, civil or otherwise - thus, life is the higher right.

Exactly. this is what I meant, in a short version.

[thalassa]

Re: Parental rights

Let's just expand that a little. Little Johnny is acting up in class. The school consults with a physician, who medicates the kid without the parents' consent "for his health and welfare".

Yeah, in the context of a conversation over killing your kid by refusing medical treatment in favor of prayer, this is one big fat logical fallacy.

So, no. Lets not expand that a little.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Parental rights

I
To that end, I don't see where religion, then, would be a red herring but, more, a simple contradiction to the "guesswork in a white coat" that medicine amounts to. That being the case, religious freedom IS pertinent, at the very least, up to a point. Medicine is pertinent but, also, only at a certain point.

That produces a "gray area" that I do not like. Where, in effect, what you believe is completely irrelevant and meaningless, in favor of some other person's beliefs. THAT is a slippery slope of religious oppression, at some point, isn't it?

Chain, let me explain why I call the religion bit a red herring.

First, it is true that medicine is imperfect. However, the child in the article died of untreated diabetes. While diabetes can't be cured, it can be treated. It is certain that child would still be alive today, given medical treatment.

I've also seen these cases revolve around other very, very treatable illnesses, like appendicitis - usually easily curable, unless untreated. Then, a lot of pain followed by death.

If the case were terminal, I imagine many parents would do the same thing I would do - try ANYTHING - no matter how far fetched it seems. This is a very different thing.

Second, we, as a society, have the expectation that parents will act in a manner beneficial to their children. We don't make exceptions for people's political orientation, or their socio-economic status, or their educational level, or their race, or their heritage, or their sexual orientation, or their social theory, or... any other reason, EXCEPT religion.

I guess that, to me, religion just isn't all that sacred that we ought to change our expectations of appropriate behavior ONLY for religion.

[ChainLightning]

Re: Parental rights

Second, we, as a society, have the expectation that parents will act in a manner beneficial to their children. We don't make exceptions for people's political orientation, or their socio-economic status, or their educational level, or their race, or their heritage, or their sexual orientation, or their social theory, or... any other reason, EXCEPT religion.

Excellent point, B. I'll concede that.


Also, I was trying to steer clear of the specifics, in this case, and stick to a generalized 'parental rights' - as within a culture that is predominantly displaced and, in effect, making it a sort of sub-culture in a much larger and inclusive society. In that, we, the [semi-]inclusive society, demand that (/those) sub-culture(s) drop their traditions, their beliefs, in order to suit OUR traditions and beliefs.






**I should add, for everyone else not familiar with my history (and therefor, what my stance on this SPECIFIC case would be) - I find what the parents did, or rather *didn't* do, to be nothing less than reprehensible and criminally neglectful. Just so there's no confusion, here.

[Medusa]

Re: Parental rights

Personally, I think people should be able to choose whatever type of medical care they prefer most for themselves and their children. If that means no medical care, or relying on some form of quackery, so be it. I think it's stupid to let your kid die of a treatable illness, but I don't feel that it should be considered murder.

Taking religion out of this for a minute.
I starve my child, because I want to.
I have sex with my 6 year old giving her Hep C.
I let animals live in my house with feces all over the place where my child lives.
Is this ok?
Or are you saying Murder is not the crime a parent faces when they keep medical care from their Diabetic child? Or that another charge should be given? Such as Parental Neglect. And what would that punishment be? Remove the child, though she'd dead? Remove the other children? Jail time. I'm just curious where your line of thought is coming from. I'm not sure I would technically call it murder either. But whatever I would call it, those parents would be in jail.

[Ophidia]

Re: Parental rights

Or are you saying Murder is not the crime a parent faces when they keep medical care from their Diabetic child? Or that another charge should be given? Such as Parental Neglect. And what would that punishment be? Remove the child, though she'd dead? Remove the other children? Jail time. I'm just curious where your line of thought is coming from. I'm not sure I would technically call it murder either. But whatever I would call it, those parents would be in jail.

There are laws in place covering medical neglect, and charges like manslaughter. Manslaughter is the charge usually brought against vegan parents whose children die of malnutrition. I honestly don't believe that not seeking medical assistance should be a crime, whether it's due to religion or not. If I ever get a potentially fatal disease like breast cancer, and the treatment options open to me do not make me feel as though they will improve my quality of life, I would not want to be compelled into treatment or face prison time if I don't comply.

Taking religion out of this for a minute.
I starve my child, because I want to.
I have sex with my 6 year old giving her Hep C.
I let animals live in my house with feces all over the place where my child lives.
Is this ok?

These things really have nothing to do with just not going to a doctor. I agree with laws being in place against physical and/or sexual abuse. Vegan parents whose kids die of malnutrition end up facing charges & jail time. The thing about hoarder houses or dead cat houses... well, if someone wants to live like a pig, that's up to them. But if one of my neighbors starts a trash house or meth lab next door, and puts my residence in danger or becomes a nuisance to me, then yeah, I'm calling Code Enforcement or the cops. If their garbage and dead animals and feces and the subsequent odor & pests stay in their house, how would anyone even know?

[Luce]

Re: Parental rights

This does not happen in the US. It is way, way illegal...

- - - Updated - - -



There isn't a problem here - the right to life trumps the right to liberty. Without life, there can be no liberty, civil or otherwise - thus, life is the higher right.

I am in the United States. The first was an allegory, and you are incorrect on the second. All rights are held to be of equal importance.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, in the context of a conversation over killing your kid by refusing medical treatment in favor of prayer, this is one big fat logical fallacy.

So, no. Lets not expand that a little.

Right, then.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Parental rights

.. and you are incorrect on the second. All rights are held to be of equal importance.

I guess that's going to depend on how well the person who is asked is able to reason. A hierarchy is inevitable because all people can not have all rights all at the same time. My right to "liberty" is seriously curtailed by the rights of others to live. That's why I am not at liberty to shoot somebody in the face if I don't like their haircut.

[DanieMarie]

Re: Parental rights

There are laws in place covering medical neglect, and charges like manslaughter. Manslaughter is the charge usually brought against vegan parents whose children die of malnutrition. I honestly don't believe that not seeking medical assistance should be a crime, whether it's due to religion or not. If I ever get a potentially fatal disease like breast cancer, and the treatment options open to me do not make me feel as though they will improve my quality of life, I would not want to be compelled into treatment or face prison time if I don't comply.

The thing is, that's YOU and your own body. You don't get to make that choice for someone else, even if they are a minor and they're a child.

[Ophidia]

Re: Parental rights

The thing is, that's YOU and your own body. You don't get to make that choice for someone else, even if they are a minor and they're a child.

So who has more rights over their child - the parent or the government? Or is the child autonomous?