Government Intervenes

[geoffrey]

I think the parents should be left to decide the care. I think death as a result of refusing a transfusion is a waste but I think a parent's right to decide what care should be allowed needs to be preserved. I don't think it is abuse. I just think it is sad.

So if I start a cult that believe that children should not consume food (for it will send them to hell or something), I should be able to starve my child because of my beliefs?

Food or blood, same idea here, needed to keep them alive.

Religious beliefs, whatever, any reason isn't good enough to kill a child. Refusing the treatment effectively ended the first child's life. That's not acceptable.

The parents should be charged with the murder of the first child IMO and the remaining children should be put in protective custody as who knows what else these parents are capable of.

[jdobbin]

So if I start a cult that believe that children should not consume food (for it will send them to hell or something), I should be able to starve my child because of my beliefs?

Food or blood, same idea here, needed to keep them alive.

Food is different from blood. It just is. Food and water deliberately withheld is abuse. Blood is not. It is a medical treatment and medical treatments should not be forced on someone.

And no religion believes children shouldn't have food. It should be noted that some religions select what food a child can eat and when they can eat it. Is that abuse? It it abuse to let them eat whatever they want?

My point is that if the government can intervene with one thing, they can intervene in everything.

I personally wouldn't refuse a blood transfusion. I've had one. I wouldn't refuse it for my child either. But forcing blood or any type of medical treatment on a parent over their children is wrong.

[newbie]

I personally wouldn't refuse a blood transfusion. I've had one. I wouldn't refuse it for my child either. But forcing blood or any type of medical treatment on a parent over their children is wrong.

It may be wrong for you, but I think it is illegal to reject treatment for a child if his/her life is on the line. The J.W.'s, by the way, see blood as food.

[jbg]

The fascinating thing, in our country, is that the JW cases established the right of Americans not to be forced to salute the flag, or express beliefs contrary to their own. I do not believe that even a US Court would allow JW's to withhold blood from a minor infant.

[jdobbin]

It may be wrong for you, but I think it is illegal to reject treatment for a child if his/her life is on the line. The J.W.'s, by the way, see blood as food.

I think they believe that blood *can't* be taken as food.

And to what end does a parent have to accept treatment for a child? At all costs?

[jdobbin]

The fascinating thing, in our country, is that the JW cases established the right of Americans not to be forced to salute the flag, or express beliefs contrary to their own. I do not believe that even a US Court would allow JW's to withhold blood from a minor infant.

That hasn't been tested yet though, has it?

[geoffrey]

Food is different from blood. It just is. Food and water deliberately withheld is abuse. Blood is not. It is a medical treatment and medical treatments should not be forced on someone.

There is no difference, starving your kid to death is no different then withholding another available product that would save their life.

Medicial treatments should never be forced on someone able to choose. These kids have no ability to choose. Their parents have no right to assume they would choose to die for a religious value they've never freely accepted.

I personally wouldn't refuse a blood transfusion. I've had one. I wouldn't refuse it for my child either. But forcing blood or any type of medical treatment on a parent over their children is wrong.

If the person has the choice, then ok. Otherwise, it's murder. They are refusing to give their children the ability to live. It's the ULTIMATE infringment upon liberty.

[jbg]

The fascinating thing, in our country, is that the JW cases established the right of Americans not to be forced to salute the flag, or express beliefs contrary to their own. I do not believe that even a US Court would allow JW's to withhold blood from a minor infant.

That hasn't been tested yet though, has it?

Haven't researched that. I will if there's an appropriate reason to do so for a paying client. Legal research databases aren't free.

[jester]

So would this count as government intervention or as a benefit for society. If you refused are you harming your child in the future.........

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...in_page_id=1770

Plan to vaccinate babies against drugs | the Daily Mail

[jdobbin]

There is no difference, starving your kid to death is no different then withholding another available product that would save their life.

Medicial treatments should never be forced on someone able to choose. These kids have no ability to choose. Their parents have no right to assume they would choose to die for a religious value they've never freely accepted.

If the person has the choice, then ok. Otherwise, it's murder. They are refusing to give their children the ability to live. It's the ULTIMATE infringment upon liberty.

As mentioned, it isn't something I would do personally for me or my family.

I don't know that we'll see a change in the law soon either but it could be something that is challenged in court. Ultimately, the question could be framed as: Do parents have any real say in the medical treatment of their child?

[jester]

Ultimately, the question could be framed as: Do parents have any real say in the medical treatment of their child?

If the parents decision is harmfull to the child I would say no. Would you allow a religion that had human sacrifice as a requirement ?

[jdobbin]

If the parents decision is harmfull to the child I would say no. Would you allow a religion that had human sacrifice as a requirement ?

Let's stick to medical treatments, shall we?

Transfusions are medical treatments. It isn't human sacrifice.

[geoffrey]

Transfusions are medical treatments. It isn't human sacrifice.

When you refuse a life saving treatment, it comes close.

This is another area where religion and science don't agree. We have to take the side of science, if we don't wish to preserve our society.

[jester]

Transfusions are medical treatments. It isn't human sacrifice.

When you refuse medical treatment on religious grounds I would say you are sacrifising your children for your Gods will. You may not call it human sacrifice but that's what it is. :angry: :angry:

[ClearWest]

So would this count as government intervention or as a benefit for society. If you refused are you harming your child in the future.........

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...in_page_id=1770

Plan to vaccinate babies against drugs | the Daily Mail

You bring up an interesting point, Jester. If vaccinations can prevent serious diseases, perhaps the parents who refuse to get their child immunized are neglecting or even sacrificing their children. We should get the government to intervene! Make them all wards of the state.

I find this one hard to make a clear decision about. But if it means giving more power to the government, I'm gonna lean towards no. I wouldn't make the same decision that these parents made; however had it been something else that the state wanted to do to my children which I found objectionable, I would be fighting against it just as much as these parents are.

It's a similar story with abortion. I don't believe in it, I'm technically pro-life. But I oppose banning it because that is a form of state intervention which in many ways can cause more harm than good.

[jdobbin]

When you refuse a life saving treatment, it comes close.

This is another area where religion and science don't agree. We have to take the side of science, if we don't wish to preserve our society.

We see people here rejecting science all the time. Global warming?

[jdobbin]

When you refuse medical treatment on religious grounds I would say you are sacrifising your children for your Gods will. You may not call it human sacrifice but that's what it is. :angry: :angry:

So is there *any* medical treatment that a parent can reject for their children or do they have to submit to any and all out there? What sort of decision-making does a parent have in this? None? Do they have to submit to transplants? Do they have to submit to radical surgery? All of that too?

[newbie]

It may be wrong for you, but I think it is illegal to reject treatment for a child if his/her life is on the line. The J.W.'s, by the way, see blood as food.

I think they believe that blood *can't* be taken as food.

And to what end does a parent have to accept treatment for a child? At all costs?

Let me clear that up. JW's use Genesis 9:4, and Leviticus 17:11,12 as justification for not "eating" blood. They equate a transfusion with eating.

[jdobbin]

Let me clear that up. JW's use Genesis 9:4, and Leviticus 17:11,12 as justification for not "eating" blood. They equate a transfusion with eating.

It's unfortunate that they have that belief. The courts appear to be supporting the law that forces dependent children to take transfusions.

http://www.570news.com/news/national/artic...ontent=n020695A

As I suspected though, the parents might legally take the child out of the jurisdiction so that she doesn't have to have the transfusion.